Any genuine Jesusaboos here?

Anyone read this guy?

>It can't be true if it somehow contradicts
>Greek reason > God

>written by mortal men

written by unknown authors about 250years the supposed thing happened

people live a life believing this stuff

>>It can't be true if it somehow contradicts
>I greentexted it so it's not true

>The gospels were written by god

>argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, i.e., his main message was that the end of history was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes. Ehrman also analyses New Testament passages such as Jesus' supposed birth in Bethlehem of a virgin and finds them not historically credible.

>Any genuine Jesusaboos here?

Me!

youtube.com/watch?v=p4XdACQWGwI

youtube.com/watch?v=uG7VtVr4eFw

...

>being a christcuck

That hair would be brown though.

That's considered blonde in my country though

>jesusaboo

Do You mean Christians?

Ehh. more like 70-80.

Read Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God". The historical Jesus was a charismatic Jewish preacher who started his own sect in Roman occupied Judea. It is very unlikely that he had ever claimed to be God or that he ever imagined that his movement would posthumously evolve into a gentile religion.

After he was killed, his followers believed he rose from the dead. Likely similar to Elvis sightings today, rumors of his resurrection snowballed . With each passing decade, his status increased. Th first gospel gives you the impression that he obtained Divine status through the resurrection. Then, that he obtained it when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Then, it seems he was born divine from his miraculous conception. Finally by the time of Gospel of John, he is elevated to the status of pre-existing Logos. So there was a gradual evolution from him being a normal human preacher in his lifetime, towards becoming the pre-existent Son of God and eventually equal with God.

This wiki excerpt is a decent baseline for this discussion.

>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[g] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[21][h][i] Jesus was a Galilean Jew[12] who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally[24] and often being referred to as "rabbi".[25] He was arrested and tried by the Jewish religious authorities,[26] and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.[27] Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, performed healings, taught in parables and gathered followers.[27][28] After his death, his followers believed he rose from the dead, and the community they formed eventually became the Christian Church.[29]

How can you preach apocalypse when there's still an unfulfilled messianic prophesy?

I think he means a Biblical history buff; i.e. someone who can contextualize Jesus' preaching in terms of what 0 AD Galilee was like.

The four canonical gospels are not necessarily included in the bible in the order they were written.

Mark was written earliest, and not surprisingly contains the least references to Jesus's supposed divinity, indeed everything in that book after the women running from the empty tomb was probably added latter on.

He claimed to be Messiah. He wasn't the only one. There were plenty of apocalyptic Jewish messianic preachers.

Of course . What I wrote was taking the written order into account, not the canonical order

Nothing was "added" later on read Saint Irenaeus the churches teaching has always been the same.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htmon the issue.

>Be career military officer
>Get promoted (Yay!)
>Get sent to the middle east (Fuck!)
>Have to deal with confrontational local elders
>Their incomprehensible local politics and infighting baffles me
>Collect intel on major players
>Lots of locals rallying around some cultist
>They think he fulfills some prophecy of their backwards desert religion
>Some whisper that he'll even end our occupation
>kek
>Elders are losing their shit
>Get woken up at 0dark30 because the local elders captured the cult leader
>Save his ass before they tear him apart
>But hold him while I figure out his agenda and our next move
>Go to interview the cult leader myself
>Oh, what the fuck!?
>Two of my enlisted guys beat the fuck out of him while I was putting out fires
>Shit is getting out of hand
>Pow wow with the elders. Cave and ask them what they want to do with this guy.
>They promise bloody fucking murder if I don't turn over the blasphemer
>Crisis threatens to destabilize the whole region
>Fuck it. "Not my problem."
>Turned the poor bastard over.
>I'm sure he's dead, and I'm sure it hurt.
>Just one of many fucked up things I have to deal with in this shit hole
>Couldn't wait to get cycled out and go home
Pic related. It's me.

You're asking a contradictory thing; who believes Jesus is God, so you can talk about Jesus as just another guy who existed.

>"Hey random jewish preacher from bumfuck nowhere who claims to be the messiah thus undermining Roman authority, I see the sanhedrin want you crucified even though they have no power to do so and it's not even a jewish form of execution. I'll try to let you off, anything for a friend."
This part never made sense to me.

For attempts to reconstruct the historical jesus read:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium - Bart Ehrman

and

Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet - Dale Allison

Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously -- that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less -- what did it matter? . . . The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value -- and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?"

What about Revolution in Judea, by Hyam Maccoby?

Pilates wife warned him that she had a dream, and to have nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever. Pilate had a dialog with Jesus and found Jesus guilty of nothing. Pilate also knew that Jesus was very popular, at the height of his popularity, and that the Jews wanted Rome to take the heat for killing Jesus, as the people already hated Rome.

Pilate even tried to get the mob to pardon Jesus, but to no avail.

The only reason Pilate condemned Jesus to death was that the Jews told him if he did not, they were going to to to Caesar and tell Caesar that Pilate was part of a seditious anti-Roman conspiracy.

Never read anything by Bart Ehrman.

Reading Bart Ehrman actually causes decreased intelligence.

I've heard the point made that Pilate could just do what he pleased to the Judaeans with unquestioned authority. Yet somehow I doubt that on the edge of the empire, far from the unquestioned authority of the Roman capital, Pilate could've just completely disregarded local authority without any thought to political capital or blow back. He very well could've had an uprising on his hands had he not killed the "criminal", regardless of his personal thoughts on the matter.

This is difficult to reconcile what other sources have to say about Pilate, that he did in fact get away with acting pretty damn highhandedly before, often going on mass executions after a little dance of

>Do something offensive to local sensibilities
>Small scale demonstrations, not really revolts, more along the lines of riots
>Welp, we've got some insurrection here, time to kill lots of locals.

Saying that this is the exact one time he learns his lesson, especially in an episode and custom that is nowhere else extant, is putting an awful lot of weight on coincidence.

Could've just exiled the dude in the dead of night.

I was going on a logical line of reasoning, but precedent and historical record certainly trumps that. I concede, user.

Gospel of Thomas

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Simon Magus

Some consider the canonical gospel of john to be the heavily modified version brought by marcion of original gospel of john. Other gospels being variations to validate the status of the church of Rome as the only one.

>Gospel of Thomas

gnostic gnonsense

...

Soo, in all likelihood...did Christianity start off as non-trinitarian or not?

Unitarian here. I'd argue it stayed that way. All the other "Christians" are following a paganized hybrid aberration.

>(((Ehrman)))

It's the gospel of Luke, ya dingus.

>hurr we can't believe the only accounts we have, let's make some stuff up instead that is purely conjecture and a willful interpretation of the only accounts we have
So this is the power of autism?

Hahaha, what a story, Mark.

Nope.

>secondary accounts are the only types of historical evidence
This is a history board user

Burger christians always seem like they're one conversation away from having their entire belief system shatter. It's why they seem to be the only Christians (bar third-worlders) who completely sperg out when even the smallest amount of scrutiny is applied to their faith.

Looking for an alternative word for Christ and Mashiakh that accurately captures its meaning. Either Unct, Enunct, or Enoint.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Denotationally, they both mean the same thing, an anointed person. Connotationally, the difference between the notion of what a Christ and what a Mashiakh (assuming you mean by the Christan and Jewish traditions, respectively) are so different from one another that you probably should have two separate terms for them.

I think adoptionism followed Arianism are the sounderst Christological/theological positions. Christians after the first council seem to have wound up devoting theirselves to trying to outdo each other in showing off their adoration of God or Christ like the Pharisees. Nestorians look like they got off that boat early.

Yeah, you forgot the fact scholars have to reject super-naturalism to retain their job and creditability, so it's only typical for them to suggest the deityship long after the apostles deaths and the prophecy of the temple. Even though we plainly can read the old testament teaches that the messiah was god-like figure from Isaiah 9:6, 48:16, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 12:8-12. Find the verses in the dead sea scrolls if you don't believe me.
Furthermore the claim that the gospels was written way after the apostles death and was influenced by the gentiles is unsubstantiated. one of Paul's earliest and authoritative letters 1 Corinthians reports existence of the gospel of Luke in 11:1-2;23, 15:1-10, and thus since the gospel mentions other writings(it's in the plural) of Christ at the time, the other synoptic gospels must have also existed.
>finally by the time of Gospel of John, he is elevated to the status of pre-existing Logo
Wrong the epistle of Hebrews and Philippians were the OG on this.

Syriac Christians use the cognate word for messiah i.e Yeshua Meshikha. All the words mean anoint but as in the case of Greek it looks like a difference between "burned" and "burnt".
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χριστός
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enoint
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unct

>344. The word christus comes from Greek, as shown by the "ch" which is the Latin way to represent the letter "chi" which is lacking in the Latin alphabet. In Greek, the word means "anointed." The Latin equivalent would be unctus. If the early Latin-speaking Christians had translated the Greek word instead of transliterating it, then we would say Jesus Unct, instead of Jesus Christ
vulgateverses.blogspot.com/2008/04/study-guide-group-27.html

>Read Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".
Why do some people read a historicans work and then believe it all as 100%, excuse the pun, Gospel?

#you're supposed to read history books and then form your own opinion, not accept it all as truth.

It's only a difference for those who choose to see it as such. Kings were anointed and Jesus was considered the King of the Jews. People without knowledge of the meanings probably don't think of an anointed king when they hear the word Christ but maybe rather of a person who has been crucified. Using traditional ecclesiastical terms like these kind of obscures the proper notion for those who aren't aware of the meanings and is kind of unnecessary in the presence of equivalent terms. The words would have also had more common usage and meanings in their languages of origin.

Can someone spoonfed me the islam version of jesus? Or point a book or some reasing materials? Danks

American Christians are the last true Christians. The rest have abandoned all Christian values because they are morally incorrect to the current liberal/capitalist zeitgeist.

Definitely not the developed trinitarianism of the council of Constantinople and later. However, early Christians obviously saw the relationship between the son and father as extremely close. The earliest Christian writings from Paul have Jesus as some kind of pre-existent divine being but it's ambiguous whether he actually identified Jesus with God himself. So maybe there was a primitive "binitarianism" that the initial disciples believed and passed on to Paul, or it could be Paul's own construction.

But we have to remember that early Christianity was very pluralistic, other traditions had different views to Paul. Jewish Christians in particular were probably direct successors of the initial community in Jerusalem. For example, according to Epiphanius, they believed that Jesus was the head archangel rather than God.